DOCSLIB.ORG

Numerical Investigation of a Novel RBCC Ejector Configuration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Numerical Investigation of a Novel RBCC Ejector Configuration Numerical Investigation of a Novel RBCC Ejector Configuration Compared to a Traditional Circular Ejector by Adrian Gerber A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario, Canada March 2015 Copyright c 2015 - Adrian Gerber Abstract The rocket based combined cycle can be an alternative engine to power a vehicle into space. The engine has 4 stages and one of the more challenging stages to in- crease performance is the first stage, the ejector stage. One proposed method to increase performance is by achieving higher entrainment performance and mixing at low free-stream velocities. The Exchange Inlet is used as an alternative nozzle to achieve this performance. The Exchange Inlet is compared to a conical nozzle within a RBCC engine with computational fluid dynamics at various pressures. The mixing and entrainment properties are compared between the two engine configurations and additional cases are investigated with shorter mixing sections to further investigate these properties. The Exchange Inlet is found to have better entrainment than the circular nozzle in all cases. ii For my mother, who always pushed me to never give up. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my professor for patiently pushing, motivating, and always showing me a little bit of light and knowledge at the end of every turn. I would also like to thank my family, friends, and girlfriend especially for the constant support and patience. iv Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgments iv List of Tables vii List of Figures viii List of Acronyms xii List of Symbols xiv 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background . 1 1.2 Rocket Based Combined Cycle . 4 1.3 Ejectors . 6 1.4 Exchange Inlet . 11 1.5 Problem Statement . 13 2 3-D Computational Theory 14 2.1 Discretization of Domain . 15 2.2 Governing Equations . 16 2.3 Favre-Averaged Navier-Stokes . 18 v 2.4 Turbulence Model . 25 2.5 Kodera . 28 3 Methodology 29 3.1 Geometry . 29 3.1.1 Twin Circular Configuration . 29 3.1.2 Exchange Inlet Geometry . 31 3.2 Numerical Setup . 33 3.2.1 Domain and Boundary Conditions . 33 3.2.2 Initialization . 34 3.2.3 Residuals . 35 4 Results 42 4.1 Validation . 42 4.2 Full Engine Configuration . 45 4.2.1 Low Pressure Cold Gas Configuration . 45 4.2.2 High Pressure Cold Gas Configuration . 58 4.3 Half Engine Configuration . 70 4.3.1 Low Pressure Cold Gas . 70 4.3.2 High Pressure Cold Gas . 80 4.4 Additional Experimental Data . 87 5 Conclusions 90 List of References 92 vi List of Tables 3 RNEP Area Properties . 33 4 Rocket Nozzle Stagnation Conditions . 35 5 Grid Sizing . 38 6 Summary Of Low Pressure configuration Results . 57 7 Summary Of High Pressure Configuration Results . 69 8 Summary Of Low Pressure Short and Long Configuration Results . 79 9 Summary Of High Pressure Short Configuration Results . 88 vii List of Figures 1 NASA Budget since 1954 (recreated from NASA Data [4]) . 2 2 Specific Impulse of Various Technologies (taken from [10] data recre- ated and taken from [11]) . 3 3 Rocket Flow path [10] . 4 4 RBCC Engine modes [10] . 5 5 Fabri choke . 7 6 Saturated Supersonic Flow . 8 7 Features of a strutjet configuration in a ramjet engine [39] . 11 8 Exchange Inlet Nozzle . 12 9 Cell Centered FVM volume centered FVM . 15 10 Twin Circular configuration 3D view . 30 11 Twin Circular RNEP . 31 12 Exchange Inlet configuration 3D view . 31 13 Exchange Inlet configuration RNEP . 32 14 Domain of Exchange Inlet configuration . 34 15 Exchange Inlet configuration Mass flow Residuals . 36 16 Exchange Inlet configuration local residuals . 37 17 Software Package Residuals . 38 18 Medium Grid within the Exchange Inlet . 39 19 Medium grid near Exchange inlet nozzle . 39 viii 20 Grid Refinement Study (Pressure) . 40 21 Grid Refinement Study (Velocity) . 41 22 Exchange inlet lower surface pressure plot at Rocket Pressure 868 kPa 43 23 Twin circular pressure plot along lower surface . 44 24 Lower Surface Low Pressure Distribution for Long Engine configuration 46 25 Upper Surface Low Pressure Distribution for Long Engine configuration 47 26 Low Rocket Chamber Pressure RNEP Mach Contours . 49 27 Low Rocket Chamber Pressure Mach Contours at ESP . 50 28 Low Rocket Chamber Pressure Mach Contours at EEP . 52 29 Low Rocket Chamber Pressure O2 Partial Density at EEP . 54 30 Stream Traces along Rocket Flow Plane of the Exchange Inlet (28 mm offset of the symmetry Plane) . 55 31 Twin Circular Stream Trace . 55 32 Exchange Inlet Rocket Flow Plane Pressure Plot . 56 33 Twin Circular Rocket Flow Plane Pressure Plot . 56 34 Exchange Inlet O2 Mass Fraction along Rocket Flow Plane . 57 35 Twin Circular O2 Partial Density along Rocket flow Plane . 57 36 Lower Surface High Pressure Distribution for Long Engine Configuration 58 37 Upper Surface High Pressure Distribution for Long Engine configuration 59 38 High Rocket Chamber Pressure Mach Contours at RNEP . 61 39 High Rocket Chamber Pressure Mach Distribution at ESP . 62 40 High Rocket Chamber Pressure Mach Distribution at EEP . 64 41 High Rocket Chamber Pressure O2 Partial Density at EEP . 65 42 Exchange Inlet configuration Stream Trace High Pressure (28 mm off- set of symmetry plane) . 66 43 Twin circular High Pressure Stream trace . 67 44 Exchange Inlet configuration Pressure Distribution . 67 ix 45 Twin circular configuration Engine Rocket Flow plane Pressure Plot . 68 46 Exchange Inlet O2 Partial Density Rocket flow plane . 68 47 Twin circular configuration Engine Outlet O2 Partial Density . 69 48 Lower Surface Low Pressure Distribution for Short Engine configuration 71 49 Upper Surface low Pressure Distribution for short Engine configuration 72 50 Short Configuration Low Rocket Chamber Pressure Mach Contours at RNEP . 73 51 Short Configuration Low Rocket Chamber Pressure Mach Distribution at EEP . 75 52 Short Configuration Low Rocket Chamber Pressure O2 Partial Density at EEP . 76 53 Exchange Inlet Short Engine Configuration Stream Trace . 77 54 Exchange Inlet short engine O2 Partial Density planar view . 78 55 Twin circular Short Configuration Low Pressure Rocket Centered Stream Trace . 78 56 Twin circular Short Engine Rocket Flow Plane O2 Partial Density . 79 57 Lower Surface High Pressure Distribution for Short Engine configuration 80 58 Upper Surface High Pressure Distribution for Short Engine configuration 81 59 Short Configuration High Rocket Chamber Pressure Mach Distribu- tions at RNEP . 82 60 Short Configuration High Rocket Chamber Pressure Mach Distribution at EEP . 84 61 Short Configuration High Rocket Chamber Pressure O2 Partial Density at EEP . 85 62 Exchange Inlet Short configuration Stream Trace . 86 63 Twin Short Engine configuration Stream Trace . 86 x 64 Exchange Inlet Short configuration O2 Partial Density along rocket flow plane . 87 65 Twin Short configuration O2 Partial Density along Rocket Plane . 87 66 Exchange Inlet Short configuration Lower surface low pressure Exper- imental VS Numerical data . 88 67 Twin circular Short configuration Lower surface low pressure Experi- mental VS Numerical data . 89 xi List of Acronyms Acronyms Definition CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics EEP Engine Exit Plane ESP Expanding Section Plane FANS Favre Averaged Navier Stokes FVM Finite Volume Method HLLEW Harten, Lax, Van Leer, Wada Reimann Solver ISP Specific Impulse JAXA Japanese Space Agency LUSGS Lower Upper Symmetric Gauss Seidel Implicit Method NASA National Aeronatics and Space Administration N-S Navier Stokes RANS Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes RBCC Rocket Based Combined Cycle xii RNEP Rocket Nozzle Exit Plane Roscosmos Russian Federal Space Agency SSTO Single Stage To Orbit xiii List of Symbols Symbols Definition E Total Energy [J] H Total Enthalpy [J] ISP Specific Impulse [s] P r Prandtl Number R Specific Gas Constant [J/K mol] T Temperature [K] U Velocity [m/s] V Volume [m3] cp Specific Heat at constant pressure cv Specific Heat at constant volume e Internal Energy per unit mass [J/kg] h Enthalpy per unit mass [J/kg] k Turbulent Kinetic Energy xiv m_ Mass Flow q generic variable 2 qj Heat Flux [W/m ] s cauchy stress tensor t Time [s] u Velocity x component [m/s] v Velocity y component [m/s] p Pressure [Pa] x Coordinate κ Thermal Conductivity [W/mK] ρ Density [kg/m3] ζ Stokes Hypothesis µ dynamic viscosity [Pa s] τ Shear Tensor δ Kroniker delta Venkatakrishnan Limiter ν Dynamic viscosity Subscript i index 1:3 xv j index 1:3 Superscript ¯ mean value from Reynolds Averaging ~ mean values from Favre Averaging ' fluctuations from Reynolds Averaging " Fluctations from Favre Averaging xvi Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Modern rocketry has been in its current form since Robert Goddard first developed the first functional liquid fueled rocket in 1926 [1]. It has been since this first successful small rocket launch that rockets have been in serious development for almost the last century. It became a fascination of many individuals to develop a vehicle that could soar past the sky and into space, including Wernher Von Braun. During World War 2, he developed the famous V2 rocket that was able to fly 300 km in range and carry a payload of 1,000 kg. After the end of World War 2, rockets and space travel went hand in hand as ways to move beyond our atmosphere were examined. Many projects were developed to find optimal rocket technology under leading rocket men like Werner Van Braun. NASA was founded in 1958 where the beginning of manned space travel finds it's birth. NASA developed rockets under the United States government in competition with the Russian governments Roscosmos to accomplish firsts, such as the first object in space (Sputnik), the first man in space (Yuri Gagarin), and eventually the first man on the moon (Neil Armstrong).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Town Hall PP Ehrenfreund TA
    Vision and Voyages For Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 What Is A Decadal Survey? • Once every ten years, at the request of NASA and NSF, the National Research Council carries out a “decadal survey” for planetary science. • The decadal survey involves broad participation from the planetary science community. • It is the primary scientific input that NASA and NSF use to design their programs of planetary science and exploration. • This decadal survey applies to the decade from 2013 to 2022. 2 Guiding Principles • Science Comes First: All recommendations must be first and foremost science-driven. • Community Involvement: Solicit community input throughout the process. • Transparency and Openness: Make the process as open and visible to all interested members of the community as possible. 3 Committee Organization Steering Group Steve Squyres, Chair Larry Soderblom, Vice Chair Vice Chairs of Panels 9 others Inner Planets Outer Planets Primitive Bodies Panel Panel Panel Ellen Stofan, Chair Heidi Hammel, Chair Joe Veverka, Chair Steve Mackwell, Vice Chair Amy Simon-Miller, Vice Chair Hap McSween, Vice Chair 10 others 9 others 10 others Mars Outer Planet Panel Satellites Panel Phil Christensen, Chair John Spencer, Chair Wendy Calvin, Vice Chair Dave Stevenson, Vice Chair 9 others 10 others 4 Inputs From The Community • The goal of the decadal survey is to seek out the community’s views, and build a consensus around those views. • More than a dozen town hall meetings were held: AGU (twice), LPSC (twice), DPS (twice), EPSC, RAS, AbSciCon, NLSI, LEAG, VEXAG, OPAG, MEPAG, CAPTEM, etc. • The community submitted 199 white papers with 1669 individual authors and endorsers.
    [Show full text]
  • Why NASA Consistently Fails at Congress
    W&M ScholarWorks Undergraduate Honors Theses Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 6-2013 The Wrong Right Stuff: Why NASA Consistently Fails at Congress Andrew Follett College of William and Mary Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Follett, Andrew, "The Wrong Right Stuff: Why NASA Consistently Fails at Congress" (2013). Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 584. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses/584 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Wrong Right Stuff: Why NASA Consistently Fails at Congress A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelors of Arts in Government from The College of William and Mary by Andrew Follett Accepted for . John Gilmour, Director . Sophia Hart . Rowan Lockwood Williamsburg, VA May 3, 2013 1 Table of Contents: Acknowledgements 3 Part 1: Introduction and Background 4 Pre Soviet Collapse: Early American Failures in Space 13 Pre Soviet Collapse: The Successful Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Programs 17 Pre Soviet Collapse: The Quasi-Successful Shuttle Program 22 Part 2: The Thin Years, Repeated Failure in NASA in the Post-Soviet Era 27 The Failure of the Space Exploration Initiative 28 The Failed Vision for Space Exploration 30 The Success of Unmanned Space Flight 32 Part 3: Why NASA Fails 37 Part 4: Putting this to the Test 87 Part 5: Changing the Method.
    [Show full text]
  • Pete Aldridge Well, Good Afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Welcome to the Fifth and Final Public Hearing of the President’S Commission on Moon, Mars, and Beyond
    The President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy PUBLIC HEARING Asia Society 725 Park Avenue New York, NY Monday, May 3, and Tuesday, May 4, 2004 Pete Aldridge Well, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the fifth and final public hearing of the President’s Commission on Moon, Mars, and Beyond. I think I can speak for everyone here when I say that the time period since this Commission was appointed and asked to produce a report has elapsed at the speed of light. At least it seems that way. Since February, we’ve heard testimonies from a broad range of space experts, the Mars rovers have won an expanded audience of space enthusiasts, and a renewed interest in space science has surfaced, calling for a new generation of space educators. In less than a month, we will present our findings to the White House. The Commission is here to explore ways to achieve the President’s vision of going back to the Moon and on to Mars and beyond. We have listened and talked to experts at four previous hearings—in Washington, D.C.; Dayton, Ohio; Atlanta, Georgia; and San Francisco, California—and talked among ourselves and we realize that this vision produces a focus not just for NASA but a focus that can revitalize US space capability and have a significant impact on our nation’s industrial base, and academia, and the quality of life for all Americans. As you can see from our agenda, we’re talking with those experts from many, many disciplines, including those outside the traditional aerospace arena.
    [Show full text]
  • Options and Issues for Nasa's Human Space Flight Program
    OPTIONS AND ISSUES FOR NASA’S HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT PROGRAM: REPORT OF THE ‘‘REVIEW OF U.S. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT PLANS’’ COMMITTEE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 Serial No. 111–51 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 51–928PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas BARON P. HILL, Indiana HARRY E.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding
    Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding: FY2020 Updated March 18, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45715 SUMMARY R45715 Federal Research and Development (R&D) March 18, 2020 Funding: FY2020 John F. Sargent Jr., President Trump’s budget request for FY2020 included approximately $134.1 billion for research Coordinator and development (R&D). Several FY2019 appropriations bills had not been enacted at the time Specialist in Science and the President’s FY2020 budget was prepared; therefore, the President’s budget included the Technology Policy FY2018 actual funding levels, 2019 annualized continuing resolution (CR) levels, and the FY2020 request levels. On February 15, 2019, Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6). This act included each of the remaining appropriations acts, completing the FY2019 appropriations process. The act also rendered the CR levels identified in the budget no longer relevant, though for some agencies the exact amount of R&D funding in the act remained uncertain. The analysis of government-wide R&D funding in this report compares the President’s request for FY2020 to the FY2018 level. In FY2018, OMB adopted a change to the definition of development, applying a more narrow treatment it describes as “experimental development.” This change was intended to harmonize the reporting of U.S. R&D funding data with the approach used by other nations. The new definition is used in this report. Under the new definition of R&D (applied to both FY2018 and FY2020 figures), President Trump requested approximately $134.1 billion for R&D for FY2020, a decrease of $1.7 billion (1.2%) from the FY2018 level.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of International Cooperation for Sustaining Space-Science Programs
    Impact of International Cooperation for Sustaining Space-Science Programs Karan Jani1 Sam Nunn Security Program Sam Nunn School of International Affairs Georgia Institute of Technology October 26, 2016 ABSTRACT Space-science programs provide a wide range of application to a nation's key sectors of development: science-technology infrastructure, education, economy and national security. However, the cost of sustaining a space-science program has discouraged developing nations from participating in space activities, while developed nations have steadily cut down their space-science budget in past decade. In this study I investigate the role of international cooperation in building ambitious space-science programs, particularly in the context of developing nations. I devise a framework to quantify the impact of international collaborations in achieving the space-science goals as well as in enhancing the key sectors of development of a nation. I apply this framework on two case studies, (i) Indian Space ​ Research Organization - a case of space-science program from a developing nation that has historically engaged in international collaborations, and (ii) International Space Station - a ​ case for a long term collaboration between matured space-science programs. My study concludes that international cooperation in space can significantly enhance scope of science goals, but has relatively little return of investment towards science education and national security. I also highlight limitations of such space diplomacy in the case of China and SAARC nations, and list criteria for future investigation and case studies. 1 [email protected] Karan Jani TABLE OF CONTENTS ​ 1. Introduction 2 … 1.1. Historical Developments in Space Research 1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Gen. Dickman Space Exploration Testimony
    Testimony of Major General Robert Dickman (USAF-Ret) Executive Director The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500 Reston, VA 20191-4344 “Reauthorizing the Vision for Space Authorization” Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation United States Senate May 7, 2008 Good Morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Major General (USAF-Ret) Robert Dickman, Executive Director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Thank you for inviting me to testify on this important issue. I would also like to thank all the 1 members of Congress and their staff for taking the time to meet with AIAA members during our annual Congressional Visits Day. We come to Congress every year in April and consistently have been welcomed with hospitality and a willingness to engage our members in open and thoughtful dialogue about important issues. As Executive Director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, I represent a constituency of over 35,000 aerospace professionals and students, located in all fifty states and 89 countries internationally. During my tenure as Executive Director, I have heard many members at our technical conferences and other venues voice their concerns about the fiscal health and future viability of NASA. At a funding level of only a fraction of a percent of the annual federal budget, NASA is being systematically starved. NASA is being forced to eliminate or severely reduce some very important work, to the detriment of critical aerospace research and development, and more broadly to the detriment of our aerospace strength and our industrial base.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Human Space Flight Hearing Committee On
    THE FUTURE OF HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 16, 2003 Serial No. 108–29 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 89–892PS WASHINGTON : 2004 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:28 May 07, 2004 Jkt 089892 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\WORKD\FULL03\101603\89892 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee DANA ROHRABACHER, California JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois JOE BARTON, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas KEN CALVERT, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California NICK SMITH, Michigan NICK LAMPSON, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DAVID WU, Oregon GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., MICHAEL M. HONDA, California Washington CHRIS BELL, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas W. TODD AKIN, Missouri ZOE LOFGREN, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma DENNIS MOORE, Kansas J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ANTHONY D.
    [Show full text]
  • Framing Science on Social Media to Raise Public Awareness of Space Exploration: a Content Analysis of NASA Mars Mission Videos and Public Responses on Youtube
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 12-2017 Framing Science on Social Media to Raise Public Awareness of Space Exploration: A Content Analysis of NASA Mars Mission Videos and Public Responses on YouTube Priyanki Sinha University of Tennessee, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Recommended Citation Sinha, Priyanki, "Framing Science on Social Media to Raise Public Awareness of Space Exploration: A Content Analysis of NASA Mars Mission Videos and Public Responses on YouTube. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2017. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/4853 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Priyanki Sinha entitled "Framing Science on Social Media to Raise Public Awareness of Space Exploration: A Content Analysis of NASA Mars Mission Videos and Public Responses on YouTube." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Communication and Information. Carol
    [Show full text]
  • Humanity and Space
    P a g e | 1 HUMANITY AND SPACE AN INTERACTIVE QUALIFYING PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE In Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Bachelor Science By James Miguel Costello Nicola Richard DiLibero III George Howard Merry Submitted to: Professor Mayer Humi P a g e | 2 CONTENTS Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 6 Moon Base .................................................................................................................................................. 13 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Why Go Back? .................................................................................................................................... 16 Lunar Radiation ................................................................................................................................... 19 Lunar Base
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Small Spacecraft Missions
    This booklet is based on the Space Studies Board report Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13117>). Details about obtaining copies of the full report, together with more information about the Space Studies Board and its activities can be found at <http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/index.htm>. Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 was authored by the Committee on the Planetary Science Decadal Survey. COMMITTEE ON THE PLANETARY SCIENCE DECADAL SURVEY Image Credits and Sources STEVEN W. SQUYRES, Cornell University, Chair LAURENCE A. SODERBLOM, U.S. Geological Survey, Vice Chair Page 1 NASA/JPL WENDY M. CALVIN, University of Nevada, Reno Page 2 Top: NASA/JPL – Caltech. <http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/gallery/OSS.jpg>. Bottom: NASA/JPL – Caltech. <http://explanet.info/images/Ch01/01GalileanSat00601.jpg>. DALE CRUIKSHANK, NASA Ames Research Center Page 3 Top: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute <http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA11133.jpg>. PASCALE EHRENFREUND, George Washington University Bottom: NASA/JPL – Caltech/University of Maryland. G. SCOTT HUBBARD, Stanford University Page 4 Gemini Observatory/AURA/UC Berkeley/SSI/JPL-Caltech <http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/ WESLEY T. HUNTRESS, JR., Carnegie Institution of Washington (retired) (until November 2009) PIA13761.jpg>. Page 5 Top: ESA/NASA/JPL-Caltech < http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46816>. MARGARET G. KIVELSON, University of California, Los Angeles Second: NASA/JPL-Caltech. Third: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institution. Bottom: NASA/JPL- B. GENTRY LEE, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Caltech <http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA15258.jpg>.
    [Show full text]
  • Accidents, Engineering, and History at Nasa, 1967-2003
    CHAPTER12 ACCIDENTS,ENGINEERING, AND HISTORYAT NASA, 1967-2003 Alexander Brown ection 203(a)(3) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act directs NASA Sto “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.”’ To fulfill that mandate, NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan instituted the NASA History Office in 1959? The office has stayed open ever since, collecting archival materials for NASA staff and outside researchers, writing history, and commissioning a wide range of works on NASA’s history. Over the last decade, the budget of NASA’s history office has remained constant at around $335,000 per annum, although funds allocated to the history office from project offices vary from year to year. Even assuming such a level over the lifetime of the office, and not adjusting for inflation, NASA’s commitment to telling its own history has cost the organization at least $15 million. But this figure is dwarfed by three official histories of NASA not commissioned by the history office. In 1967, 1986, and 2003, NASA spent $31 million, $75 million, and $152.4 million to produce multivolume accounts of fatal acci- dents in the manned space pr~gram.~These three accident reports examined the fatal fire in Apollo 204 (Apollo 1) in 1967, the explosion of the Solid Rocket Booster in STS-51L (Challenger) in 1986, and the destruction of the orbiter in STS-107 (Columbia). Fatal accidents in publicly funded systems catch particular media and public attenti~n.~Governments become compelled to conduct wide-ranging 1.John M.Logsdon et al.,eds., Exploring the Unknown:Selected Documents in the History ofthe US.Civil Space Program, vol.
    [Show full text]